Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orion Very cool idea Avalon. Any thoughts as how this compares with other types of CO2 diffusion methods? |
This idea uses the "mist" approach that essentially says that physical contact of CO2 with plants = better plant growth. And it does. I would say it's one of the better methods. I recently outdid myself and created my own "Fogger™" method. It uses a strong powerhead and it's own pre-diffusion device. The result is a massive fog of CO2 that circulates throughout the tank using direct reflection technology (DRT™) for bidirectional flow (BDF™); collectively known as unidirectional reflection technology (UDRF™). Forget the mist!
Yes, I am full of it today!
Quote:
|
I would think that using PVC would be better than the soft tubing because that would allow for an easier time getting the same sized holes though out the pipe.
|
Well, PVC, or acrylic (better choice), I think would be better, but not for that reason. Keeping the pipe even is key when dealing with the buoyancy of CO2 gas. It would eliminate collection spots in the hose. However, you could combat this in a flixible hose with more water flow (pressure).
Quote:
|
Also how would it affect the amount of CO2 getting in the water if you placed the holes along the bottom of the pipe facing down? This would ensure that very little gas would escape into the water, giving more time for the water to become saturated with it. I don't know, because if too much gas began to collect and the bubbles become to large then the water isn't going to be able to absorb it as well.
|
The point of the mist idea is to have bubbles in addition to the saturation point of CO2 in the water. Direct contact of CO2 with the plants is the goal. Anyone that uses CO2, without a reactor, has already experienced this. They just haven't realized it. Case in point, 100% saturation of CO2 in the water is not enough.